CULTURAL RELATIVISM

Have you ever seen or eaten food from another country, such as dried squid or fried crickets
and think of it as weird and gross? This is an example of ethnocentrism. That means you use
your own culture as the center and evaluate other cultures based on it. You are judging, or
making assumptions about the food of other countries based on your own norms, values, or
beliefs. Thinking “dried squid is smelly” or “people shouldn’t eat insects” are examples
of ethnocentrism in societies where people may not eat dried squid or insects.
To avoid judging the cultural practices of groups that are different to yours, we can use
the cultural relativism approach. Cultural relativism refers to not judging a culture to our own
standards of what is right or wrong, strange or normal. Instead, we should try to understand the
cultural practices of other groups in their own cultural context. For example, instead of thinking,
“Fried crickets are disgusting!” one should instead ask, “Why do some cultures eat fried
insects?”. You may learn that fried crickets or grasshoppers are full of protein and in Mexico, it
is a famous Oaxaca regional cuisine and has been eaten for thousands of years as a healthy
food source!
List of the Pros of Cultural Relativism
1. Cultural relativism removes the power of societal conditioning.
When cultural relativism is the driving force, there is no need for individuals to conform to
society. You are no longer required to conform to the beliefs, thoughts, or attitudes of the groups
in your environment. It is entirely up to you to chart your own path through life. This process
halts the slow degeneration that all societies experience when everyone tries to be like
everyone else.
2. Cultural relativism allows for the creation of individual moral codes.
Cultural relativism's structures allow each person to consult with their culture's or society's
expectations to determine what they believe is right or wrong. This procedure generates a
simple test that determines how each individual reacts in response to specific circumstances.
You are always in control of what you believe to be a moral decision. You decide which actions
are permitted or prohibited. Despite the fact that this structure can define morality outside of
what would be considered traditional rules, societies create a culture that encourages inclusion
over structure exclusion in almost every circumstance.
3. Cultural relativism does not rely on moral relativism.
Cultural relativism regards each culture as an individual. Individual moral codes and
expectations are implemented by those who define themselves through that individuality. Some
cultures may prefer constraints. Others may prefer complete inclusion. It is a process that
encourages each person to do what makes the most sense for them in each situation in order to
achieve their definition of ethics and morality.
4. Cultural relativism creates a society which is free from judgment.
One of the most significant advantages of cultural relativism is that it eliminates all negative
judgments from individual interaction. We've become so trained as humans to judge others
when we see something different that we don't even think about it half the time. When we push
someone down in order to elevate ourselves, we are judging that person to be inferior to our
superiority. Cultural relativism takes this to its logical conclusion. Even if you disagree with how
you define your moral code in the structure, your morality is identical to their morality. You both
have the opportunity to define your own life expectations.
5. Cultural relativism preserves human culture.
Tracing the history of humanity through time reveals that societies' ideas, traditions, and
practices are diverse. We frequently set aside this history in order to conform to the
expectations that third parties place on us. This structure never requires anyone to trade any of
their culture. You, like everyone else, decide what is the best course of action to take in any
given situation.
6. Cultural relativism encourages respect.
Even though there is a focus on individuality within a cultural relativism-practicing society, there
is also respect for their diversity. Various ideologies and ethnicities are frequently celebrated. As
an evolutionary process, this system promotes individual definitions rather than group
definitions, allowing each person to pursue goals from their own perspective while focusing on
their natural strengths. No one is ever forced to follow a set of rules or values in order to be
successful.
7. Cultural relativism promotes cooperation.
Because we are diverse, humanity is strong. Each individual has a unique perspective on life
based on their thoughts, education, and experiences. These distinctions should not serve as a
source of anxiety. They should serve as the foundation for collaboration. We can accomplish
more as a group than we can as individuals. Productivity levels quickly rise when each unique
set of values is combined with individualized moral descriptions.
8. Cultural relativism creates a society which is authentically equal.
The traditional society forces people to rise to the top by climbing over others. If success is your
primary goal, you are encouraged to discriminate against anyone. Cultural relativism prevents
this by encouraging each individual to define the path they must take. There will always be
people who prefer one skin color over another, or one gender over another, or one sexual
orientation over another. The structure, on the other hand, will reveal a plethora of individual
perspectives melting into a society capable of great things.

List of the Cons of Cultural Relativism

1. Cultural relativism creates a society that is fueled through personal bias.
People are raised in specific environments where various truths are taught. Some families are
extremely welcoming, while others are preoccupied with racial prejudice. Instead of sharing
different outcomes, cultural relativism encourages individuals to form alliances with those who
share similar perspectives. Because of the discomfort levels that occur when different definitions
are present, community segregation occurs frequently. In a society with structure, people will
always follow their own moral codes and ethics at the expense of others.
2. Cultural relativism only works if humanity is perfect.
Most people would agree that the average person makes an effort to do good every day. The
average person wishes that everyone had the opportunity to pursue their dreams or goals in
some way. Cultural relativism defines these concepts as creating a temptation to follow the
processes. The problem with this is that everyone is fallible. Humans are capable of lying,
cheating, and stealing. When things don't go our way, we can become enraged, putting
ourselves and our families in danger. There must be a moral code that governs different groups
in society in order to create enough checks and balances to deal with these flaws.
Individual moral codes would reign supreme in the absence of this supporting structure. That is,
we would be striving for perfection while pursuing imperfection.
3. Cultural relativism drives people away from one another.
In his work "The Screwtape Letters," C.S. Lewis described what an environment based on
cultural relativism would be like, with each person attempting to get as far away from every
other individual as possible in order to escape whatever personal demons they might have. In a
society like this, there are no guarantees that you will ever be safe. Someone's moral code may
dictate that you must die in order for that person to feel better. Although the theory implies that it
would embrace diversity, in reality, people would isolate themselves in order to protect their
lives.
4. Cultural relativism would create a world of chaos.
Because there is no concrete definition of right and wrong, the idea that someone could follow
their own moral code at any time would lead to chaos. Anyone, at any time, could cause harm to
another person. You could buy something from the store if you thought it was the right thing to
do. You could disobey any of the laws (assuming they were enforced) if you felt they were being
applied unfairly. Only the strongest would survive in such a situation, bringing it closer to an
apocalyptic version of the future rather than something more realistic.
5. Cultural relativism would promote a lack of diversity.
Individual perspectives are the only form of diversity that cultural relativism promotes. With this
societal format, all of the rights that so many of our forefathers fought for for generations would
vanish in an instant. In this scenario, the only standards that people could adhere to are those
that they set for themselves. Each individual will then seek their own position of strength. When
the emphasis on success is based on selfish accomplishments, it is impossible to create a
diverse society.
6. Cultural relativism allows opinions and perceptions to become universal truths.
If cultural relativism is implemented in society, any theory can become the truth. Even if you
imagine something, what you think or feel becomes a reality. This is the concept's most
significant disadvantage. An opinion becomes fact in an instant. Perceptions become tangible.
You could make up a story, include it in your personal morality, and no one would be able to
stop you from achieving whatever outcome you desired.
7. Cultural relativism would limit the progress of humanity.
Some people consider cultural relativism to be an evolution of the human experience. However,
the reality is that this idea would stifle our progress. There are no standards to follow if judgment
is completely removed from a society. We would no longer be able to effectively compare
different societies, past or present, in order to chart a course for the future. Because we would
all be operating within our own cultures, there could be no true definition of success for
humanity. Even if each individual could see personal progress, billions of people would be
moving in different directions at the same time.
These cultural relativism pros and cons are a reflection of the possible outcomes if this
theoretical system were to be implemented at some point. It is an idea proposed by Franz Boas
in the late nineteenth century that has never been implemented on a large enough scale to
affect alarm society. If we followed this idea, we would be creating individualized cultures rather
than group societies, which would change the world as we know it.

if a person believes that eating meat is morally wrong, then it IS wrong -- for her. In other words,
it would be morally wrong for Susan to eat meat if Susan believed that eating meat is always
morally wrong.
Cultural relativism does not rely on moral relativism, therefore eating meat or being a vegetarian
is seen as an individual decision and not as a moral code